Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Ravensdale Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ravensdale]

346DA: After Clause 87, insert the following new Clause—
“Development for reasons of national security or energy security in the absence of an EDP(1) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/1012) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 64 (Considerations of overriding public interest), at end insert—“(7) In paragraph (1), “imperative reasons of overriding public interest” may include a situation where—(a) the Secretary of State considers that the development is necessary—(i) for reasons of national security, or(ii) in relation to the generation and conveyance of low carbon electricity, energy and security, and(b) no environmental delivery plan under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 applies to the plan or project(8) In paragraph (1), “no alternative solutions” should be read to mean no alternative solution which can be delivered whilst maintaining reasonable development costs.(9) “Low carbon electricity generation” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Energy Act 2013 (Regulations to encourage low carbon electricity generation).”(3) In regulation 68 (Compensatory measures), at end insert—“(2) The Secretary of State may disapply this regulation where—(a) the appropriate authority commits to alternative compensatory environmental measures, and(b) the Secretary of State considers these measures—(i) have a higher environmental value than any compensation measures which would be necessary to meet the requirements of this regulation, or(ii) are necessary to maintain reasonable development costs.(3) Within six months of the day on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State may publish guidance setting out how reasonable development costs are to be assessed in relation to this regulation.””

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis, and as co-chair of Legislators for Nuclear. This group of amendments gets to the heart of some of the issues with this Bill. It is important that we get Britain building again, not least to reverse the long stagnation in the UK economy since 2008. The Chancellor tells us that growth is the problem, and investment is the solution, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

There is a significant risk that Part 3, the centrepiece of this Bill, is not going to deliver for complex infrastructure. The reasons are straightforward: Part 3 may work for a known issue such as nutrient neutrality for a housing development, where developers can club together and pay into a fund. However, for infrastructure developments, habitat issues will not be known in advance, and there will not be time for developers to agree and implement an EDP before consent. Therefore, they are left with a couple of options: they can try to twin-track, which could risk adding even more bureaucracy to the process, or go the existing route. We all know the issues with the existing route—bat tunnels and fish discos have been well-publicised—but less well known are the years-long delays to offshore windfarms due to issues with compensation for environmental impacts and the like.

For example, we have had multi-year delays to the trio of Norfolk offshore wind projects—Norfolk Vanguard East, Norfolk Vanguard West and Norfolk Boreas—due to issues around compensation for an undersea worm, Sabellaria reef, even in areas where it was not present. That is not to mention cutting the size by around 40% and the generation potential of East Anglia ONE North windfarm due to habitat issues with red-throated diver, despite assessments putting the impact at one bird death per year.

Ultimately, if the Government want to meet their ambitious targets for clean energy and growth, they will need an approach that delivers for infrastructure, as well as for housing. For energy, we have managed to build approximately 4 gigawatts of new capacity per year over the last three years. To meet the Government’s clean power target, that will have to increase to at least 15 gigawatts per year between now and 2030—from the Government’s own data—so that is a quadrupling of our current build rate. A lot of that is offshore wind, and I should be clear from my examples that this acceleration in build rates simply will not happen under the current regulatory regime.

At the foundation of all this are the habitats regulations, which are of course very important for the protection of nature in this country but which have become overly burdensome due to the impacts of case law over the years and an overly precautionary approach by the regulator in some cases. Amendment 350 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, proposes some minor changes to steer the interpretation of the habitats regulations back to their original intent to protect nature but to strike a balance. This has been developed in broad consultation with planning lawyers and ecologists who have decades of experience in taking large projects through the planning system.

The amendment provides a menu of options for the Government. One of those is defining a science-led approach, which is important because too often the statutory nature conservation bodies require developers to provide evidence against hypothetical rather than real risks. I am vice-chair of the POST board—the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. POST is the link between the scientific research community and Parliament, and we work to ensure a science-led approach to lawmaking. This is an area where it is vital that we ensure that we take a scientifically rigorous approach.

The second part of the amendment would overturn some aspects of case law to get to a more proportionate approach, stating that de minimis effects cannot produce an adverse effect; that mitigation measures can be taken into account when deciding whether a proposed project is likely to have a significant effect; that there is no need to redo a habitats assessment for approval of conditions under a consent that was originally subject to a habitats assessment; and, finally, that compensation measures need not address the same type or scale of impact as the harm caused nor be in place before impact occurs, which restates existing law. I will leave the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to fill in the detail.

The package of measures in Amendment 350 is a pragmatic and proportionate means of restoring some balance to a system that is currently making it extremely difficult to build infrastructure in the UK. One of the key benefits of what we are proposing is that it would have immediate benefits for a range of projects around the UK. It does not need additional regulations to be developed and raised nor EDPs to be developed; the impact is there straight away.

Amendment 346DA in my name is in the same vein and attacks the problem from a different angle—again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his support. It seeks to recognise that there are perhaps narrowly defined classes of projects which should be able to cut through the usual process. For example, we are building offshore wind, which is vital to our energy security and therefore to our national security. Is it really acceptable that these developments have been held up for years because of delays to compensatory regimes under the habitats regulations? Can we really afford to delay infrastructure that is key for the Government’s net-zero target, for energy security and therefore national security in this way? I suggest not, and that there could be certain classes of project, those related to national security and energy security, where the Secretary of State should have additional powers to allow projects to proceed and to work to define their own compensatory measures.

Between Amendments 350 and 346DA, we have a package of options for the Government which seek to recognise the issues of Part 3 for infrastructure and ensure that the Bill delivers for growth—I add to this my previous Amendment 46 on regulators. Ultimately, we need to strike a better balance between the impact of infrastructure on the local environment—the micro view—and the benefits of that infrastructure for the nation, whether that is net zero, energy security or economic growth: the macro view.

We have heard some rumblings in the news about a second planning Bill focused on infrastructure. I do not know the truth of that, but my observation is that we cannot wait for another Bill; we simply do not have the time. The Government need to seize the opportunity that the Bill represents and ensure that it delivers for infrastructure, and I restate the immediate benefit that these amendments would have. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I thank him for his amendments and for his support of mine. In fact, he very ably summarised my amendments. It is clearly important and good that we are getting back to what the Bill is all about: the growth agenda. As the Explanatory Memorandum and policy background state, we have a huge problem in building the infrastructure that we need to get this country going again and growing again. The Bill is obviously designed to help us do that, particularly through the planning reforms, EDPs and so on. The big question is whether the Bill is sufficiently focused to give us confidence that our regulatory system is not going to prevent the kind of rapid growth that we need. This is where there is some concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendment 349A in this group makes a minor legislative fix, inserting the correct definition of the Ramsar site series into the habitats regulations.

I turn to the non-government amendments and the debate we have just been listening to. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath have tabled a number of amendments concerning the operation of the habitats regulations. I wish to add some detail to comments I made in Monday’s debate in response to amendments seeking to limit the disapplication of the habitats regulations to the specific features and impacts identified in the environmental delivery plan. This is an important point which is relevant for today’s debate.

As I said on Monday, the disapplication in Schedule 4 already applies only to the specific impacts of the development identified in the EDP. I want to set out how this could work in practice. If a development proposal comes forward that has three different impacts on protected features—for example, nutrient pollution, recreational disturbance on ground-nesting birds and an impact on dormice—there might be two EDPs covering the area where that development is located, each addressing strategically the impacts of development on one of those environmental features. In this scenario, the developer may choose to discharge its obligations in relation to the two environmental impacts covered by those EDPs through payment of the relevant levy for each. The remaining impact would continue to be assessed in the usual way, either through the habitats regulations assessment or by applying for a species licence. With the other two impacts being addressed through the EDPs, the remaining assessment would be more focused and streamlined.

I want to be clear that it would remain necessary to consider any effects not covered by an EDP. This is by design. EDPs are intended to be modular, with each one addressing a specific impact or impacts. They are not intended to be a comprehensive way of addressing all the possible environmental impacts of developments. I hope that helps to clarify.

I come to the specific amendments that we have been debating. I know that noble Lords have been concerned that EDPs might not deliver for infrastructure, so they have proposed these amendments to improve the operation of the existing system. Our focus in bringing forward the measures in this Bill has been on ways to practically improve the planning process. Case-by-case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much- needed housing and infrastructure, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, explained in his introduction. The nature restoration fund will allow developers to benefit from a streamlined process and simple user experience, while delivering better outcomes for nature. The Bill is also clear that EDPs can be brought forward to support nationally significant infrastructure projects.

The Government already plan to address, through improved guidance, many of the points made in the amendments and by noble Lords. Although I note the desire for an open conversation about wider reforms to the habitats regulations, noble Lords will recognise that amendments of the type proposed go far beyond the NRF and would benefit from proper scrutiny and consideration. Although many in the Committee may favour the spirit of some of these amendments, legislating in this manner at this late stage of the Bill would risk a period of significant uncertainty for practitioners and a potentially negative impact on development that we would all wish to avoid.

I turn to Amendment 346DA. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for raising the important issue of energy security. I wish to clarify that, through the overarching energy national policy statement, nationally significant low-carbon infrastructure is recognised as critical national priority infrastructure. In relation to such projects, the Secretary of State will start with a presumption in favour of granting consent. It is recognised that it is likely that the needs case for this infrastructure will outweigh the residual effects in all but the most exceptional cases, and we are already seeing positive impacts of CNP infrastructure. The current overarching national policy statement for energy also confirms that, where there are no alternative deliverable solutions to mitigating the impact of the NSIP on sites subject to habitats regulations assessments, then compensatory measures are still required.

Delivery of compensatory measures is an important part of protecting our network of protected sites, where damage to a site is unavoidable and where there is an overriding public interest. For offshore wind, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, explained, there are particular issues around the identification of suitable compensation, and the marine recovery fund will provide an optional mechanism which developers can pay into to discharge their environmental compensation obligations. In addition, for offshore wind, Defra recently consulted on changes to the environmental compensation requirements and intends to introduce a statutory instrument to deliver these changes. Where an environmental delivery plan is in place under the nature restoration fund, this will enable developers to fund strategic, Government-led conservation measures.

Amendments 349 and 350, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Amendment 349B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would fundamentally alter many of the well-established principles of the current regime. While the Government understand and support many of their intentions, the focus of Part 3 is to establish the nature restoration fund and create a tool to address the environmental impact of development. Expanding the scope of the Bill in this way, as I said before on the other amendments, risks introducing uncertainty into the system and could slow the consenting of development. Several of the amendments also raise questions in respect of how they guard against environmental regression and significant harm to protected sites.

We feel that such significant changes to the habitats regulations assessment process would be better addressed following greater scrutiny, including from affected stakeholders. However, they raise a number of very important points about the operation of the habitats regulations. To take two specific points, decisions should be made on the basis of the best available scientific evidence and the habitats regulations assessment process should be applied appropriately and proportionately.

Government amendments to Part 3 include clarifying that both Natural England and the Secretary of State will take account of the best available evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP. However, introducing legislative definitions of “scientific evidence” or “scientific justification”, as proposed by these amendments, needs careful consideration to understand the impact of such changes and to avoid the risk that we introduce unnecessary uncertainty and increased litigation in this area.

Dan Corry’s review, which we have mentioned in previous debates, also suggests a potential reform to the habitats regulations and how they are applied, while ensuring consistency with international obligations. I can confirm that we are looking at how to improve the operation of the existing habitats regulations. We are preparing updated guidance on the assessment process, and the noble Lord’s amendment rightly addresses the role that guidance can play in encouraging a proportionate application of that process. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may also wish to note in relation to his amendment that the guidance will make clear the flexibility that exists in order to screen out the de minimis effects where it is clear that there is no risk of harm to the integrity of the protected site.

I supported much of what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, and the approach that he suggested—that we need to be much more considered and take more time over some of this. We will of course continue to consider ways in which the operation of the habitats regulations can be improved, while protecting our most valuable habitats and species, at the same time as providing more certainty and an efficient process for developers. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments but continue to work with us on this important matter.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her summing up and the extra information that she provided, particularly the important clarity around NSIPs and Part 3. However, we have not yet got away from the central issue of how useful Part 3 is going to be for major infrastructure projects. I appreciated what she said on guidance, but, clearly, we need to go further in what is laid down in statute. Coming back to Amendment 350, we are talking about minor changes to the regulations, to bring us back to their original intent and to clarify the existing law. I certainly look forward to further discussions with the Minister and other noble Lords on this as we go towards Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 346DA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, tempting as it is to have a large-scale debate about nuclear energy, I do not think that noble Lords will want that. I broadly understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, and I am sympathetic to the thrust of what she is saying. However, I say to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that nuclear is part of the package. It is the essential baseload. We are going to be very reliant on wind and sun, and the whole thing has to be seen together.

We have this huge potential now. Hinkley Point C is making real progress. A final investment decision has been reached for Sizewell C. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is right about the importance of the appraisal that GBN has undertaken, and government support for Rolls-Royce, and the announcement this week of the agreement with the US, which is twofold. The first point is regulatory alignment, which means, rather like in the pharmaceutical sector, that if one of the major regulators in the US, the UK, or Europe signs off a particular medicine, there is often mutual recognition. Clearly, this is important in meeting this point about reducing the amount of unnecessary bureaucracy in relation to regulation in future. The second point is on the announcement by a number of US companies, particularly from the west coast, who wish to invest in AI and data centres in the UK aligned to advanced modular reactors, which is fantastic news.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I am sure Rolls-Royce is going to be in a very good position, but it has to be open to companies to invite other countries’ reactors as well. You do not want to put all your eggs in one basket in any case. The question then comes back to the issues we have been talking about recently as to whether the regulatory system we have collectively is going to be up to meeting this challenge. I commend a report published yesterday by Britain Remade, whose conference I happened to attend, which caused such offence to my noble friend. It is a very good report about the history of nuclear power development in this country. We had the lead once upon a time. We foolishly threw it away. We have a great chance to get back in at a substantive level, but at the moment it simply costs too much. There are various reasons: there is overspecification—we have heard that before—and there is slow resource-intensive consultation, planning and permitting. We have heard about the issues around some of the environmental protections, and there are various other reasons as well.

I wanted to ask my noble friend this. She knows that there is a Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce. It was set up under the auspices of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It gave an interim report in the summer. It is going to come back very soon with a substantive report, but the interim report spoke of,

“fundamental concerns about how regulation operates in practice, with the most prominent being that the system is perceived to be unnecessarily slow, inefficient, and costly”.

On the assumption that this report comes out within the next few weeks, will it be possible to use this Bill on Report as a way of trying to deal with some of the regulatory hurdles? I understand that my noble friend probably cannot answer that, first because the Government have not received the report, and secondly because they will have to consider how to do it, but I just express the hope that we might be able to use this Bill as a vehicle.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

Very briefly, I follow on from the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I raised the point he just made in a question a week or so back. That is a really important point: to try and join the dots between the work ongoing with the regulatory task force and this Bill, because it is a prime opportunity to make the legislative changes that are required.

I certainly support the intent of the amendments that the noble Baroness put forward. To go back to the announcement on Monday, we are going to need nuclear in many more locations across the UK than the traditional nuclear sites. I chair an organisation called Midlands Nuclear, where we have been undertaking a siting study for where we can locate nuclear across the region in many non-traditional sites—for example, old coal-fired sites and gas sites. That is going to require a new approach to planning: how we take all these reactors forward, and the sheer number of reactors that were talked about in Monday’s announcement. I temper that by saying that, of course, we are going to need energy of all forms to get to net zero: more wind, solar, nuclear and gas storage. I highlighted some of the issues with wind in debate on the previous group of amendments. We need to think about how we do this more broadly in the planning system.